I been playing Gary Grigsby games ever first came out, remember playing that ol' Warship back in the 80's. Manage to beat the War in the Pacific in the 90's as playing the Japanese. So i get mix up playing this and sometimes i like Pacific Storm: Allies better due to actions in 3D by Lesta made by the Russians. For many months i have modding Pacific Storm: Allies to add additional ship models and balance out the resources, etcs. I still love that game, but most of us know that game is not realistic enough to play. It took me many months to fix it and still few others thing is needed, some of them are hardcoded that cannot be changed.

When i play WitP:AE, the aircraft R&Ds doesnt feel right, any players can change it and should have research trees to do research over time depend on the leaders. That way you can work your way to more advance models. Playing against a person through PBEM, hard to trust someone that arent cheating, esp changing the aircraft layout for more advance planes and not choosen the eariler models that should have been in the first place.

The hard parts is not knowing what happen in the Pacific in WWII, buy throwing away those books and documents and learn how to deal with it and try to fight it out in logic ways. There are pros and cons on both sides, having this abilities to understand what happen and not making the same mistakes twices. This would be more interesting ways to play the game, infact playing it again would never be like the first experiences you have played.

When i played the game along with AIs in the Grand Scale Campaign, i usually leave the aircraft factories as it is and the engine factories too. That way it would be alittle more realistic, but not enough to gain due to many other eariler prototypes have been missing out.

Idea- during the action phases can watch the 3D battles along with stunning graphics we have today, that something i would like to see. Or even look at the shipyards and see how much progress the ships is needed, or the beautiful landscapes.

Does anyone else have any ideas would like to add for future War in the Pacific in WWII?

Anyway for those would like to see the mod i made for PSA, you can check it out on facebook by using the keyword "Pacific Storm Allies Mod" and also the official forum. Dont think im allowed to post those links that arent related to WitP:AE, since that there is no off topic here.

Well not sure about which ships to laydown, guess that can be option. Even more options will bring the game to most people that are comfortable with. Some wishes better GUIs while others want to see some actions that i hoped for. Imagine if heavy bombers leveled your city and taking a look at it in strategy view up close, most players have no ideas what they can do to cities.

in 10 or 15 years it might be possible to have a real-time WITP: PBEM..

so 1 day in the war is 1 day in the game.. multiple small windows showing the 3D battles maybe even a take-the pilot seat mode like in Battle of Britain II

500GB install file.

so everyone in their office has 24/7 hours access.. plan your carrier battle to co-incide with your opponent's sleep hours

I remember playing that game of Battle of Britain, at least its a start and see how others like it. Now im not sure about real-time WitP, that can get really hairy. Infact need one hellva pc to do something that big, but it is possible.

1. Search plane on map (option) 2. R&D and upgrade tree for armament/vehicle 3. R&D for a/c weapon and equip 4. Flexible design of ships and planes which can be changed by player, developed and built. 5. Accuracy of bombs depend not from weight, effect or penetration but from method of use, number of bombs, alt, hardpoint, stress from defence over target etc 6. ASW equip for both side, also can be R&D 7. Ability for order LCUs with predefined structure 8. Split LCU not for only A/B/C 9. Expensive repair of damaged port/AF 10. Extended AAR (option) with more info about shell/bomb hits 11. Minewarfare can be extended with spent HI in mine production.

1. Search plane on map (option) 2. R&D and upgrade tree for armament/vehicle 3. R&D for a/c weapon and equip 4. Flexible design of ships and planes which can be changed by player, developed and built. 5. Accuracy of bombs depend not from weight, effect or penetration but from method of use, number of bombs, alt, hardpoint, stress from defence over target etc 6. ASW equip for both side, also can be R&D 7. Ability for order LCUs with predefined structure 8. Split LCU not for only A/B/C 9. Expensive repair of damaged port/AF 10. Extended AAR (option) with more info about shell/bomb hits 11. Minewarfare can be extended with spent HI in mine production.

That i do like to see, even if they started this project may take several to five years depend on manhours and resources they have. Also depend on their experiences in programming and such. Funny i been trying to make something like this back in 89', but i never got a chance to complete my training in programming. Even for one person for this project would take forever, let see what happen and wish there a way i can contact Gary about this matter. Believe i may have found him, if the email reached him. All he does is make wargames nothing more, but he may need extra hands and helps to get this project going. Wait and see what happen down the roads.

Talking about Google and Apple - what about additional app for iPhone and Android? For example, through sync you would have acsess to your combat reports, ops reports, intelligence, databases etc. so you can be "in" and plan your moves even if you are away from your computer...

Anyway, the email i got early this morning have reached to Gary Grisgby by the staffs of his department. Maybe we get somewhere here, again he may or may not want to do this. It is a big project, im sure of it.

Another though, i also would like to see photo of commanders and great leaders in the up coming WitP II.

When i play WitP:AE, the aircraft R&Ds doesnt feel right, any players can change it and should have research trees to do research over time depend on the leaders. That way you can work your way to more advance models. Playing against a person through PBEM, hard to trust someone that arent cheating, esp changing the aircraft layout for more advance planes and not choosen the eariler models that should have been in the first place.

Rising Sun, how is this cheating? What is wrong with choosing to research more advanced planes and not using early models in a series? For example, I am planning on researching the the B6N1 Jill and immediately switching the research factories over to the B6M2 without actually producing any B6N1s. What is wrong with this?

When i play WitP:AE, the aircraft R&Ds doesnt feel right, any players can change it and should have research trees to do research over time depend on the leaders. That way you can work your way to more advance models. Playing against a person through PBEM, hard to trust someone that arent cheating, esp changing the aircraft layout for more advance planes and not choosen the eariler models that should have been in the first place.

Rising Sun, how is this cheating? What is wrong with choosing to research more advanced planes and not using early models in a series? For example, I am planning on researching the the B6N1 Jill and immediately switching the research factories over to the B6M2 without actually producing any B6N1s. What is wrong with this?

What you are doing is nothing wrong with that, its logical way to improve your aircraft design.

After checking out the aircraft factories, they are scatter all over Japan, infact you cant research any late models without have proper prototypes of the early models. Idea-having research trees showing path like family tree. The late models should be hidden til you get one step closer to improving the early models. IE: if you were focusing on Ki-43-Ic and want to improve it, showing tech tree that can be added extra payload, more speed, etcs. then it will become Ki-43-IIa later on around late 1942.

If i was playing with someone and i can skip most prototype to get better aircrafts or dont want to use the crappy ones instead. I think the aircraft factories should have been locked so players cannot change them, but expanding or upgrade should be allowed. Hope this help you understand what i was saying earlier.

the ability to research engines ahead of time is wrong --> since the player knows what engines will work and what ones do not

historically: a nice engine was being designed and made ready for mid 1941, the 1870hp nakajima mamoru. It was to equip the Tenzan torpedo plane and Shinzan heavy bomber. Problems? The design didn't work.

Tenzan was delayed so there was no torpdo plane production at the start of the war, it was so bad that the Kankoh (Kate) was put back in production. The Shizan was cancelled.

The research system is based on hindsight, if the player is allowed to make changes in a non-historical scenario, they need to be limited to historical engine arrival dates and it would be more realistic to be able to re-configure the designs that were already available (example A6M8 could have been ready by 1/43), and B6N2 with Ha-32-21 can be ready on 1/43 (B6N was supposed to have the 1850 hp kasei right from the start)

just want things to be kept plausible. Annoying that the japanese player is allowed to research some advanced designs, sometimes getting the frank by early 1943 while the allied player cannot do the same.

Also the concept of using supply for R&D seems out of place, better to have an interface with each design team being told what to prioritize

*ediit: also want to eliminate the feature of *factory hex needs supply to produce AC* .. it's another headache faced by the jap player

Interesting discusion way above my pay grade. All I know is I love this game. The first Pacific War Computer Game I played was in the early-mid 80's called Guadalcanal Campaign for the Apple II. Anything that can take it to a new and improved level would be most welcome.

_____________________________

Don "Our profession should always be crowned by heroic death in battle" Generalfeldmarschall Fedor von Bock